Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification - draft-eggert-bcp45bis-04.txt

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

I’ve not seen any further comments on this thread since Saturday.

My interpretation is that Lars and Barry are supportive of this change.

Brian, my interpretation is that Lar’s proposed text is acceptable to you.  Please clarify if this is not the case.

I would like to wait until Friday to see if there are any further comments on Lar’s proposed text.  If there are no strong objections then on Friday I’ll ask Lars to post a -05 with the change and I’ll kick off IETF LC.

Regards,
Rob


From: Brian Carpenter <[e-mail]>
Sent: 11 September 2021 08:38
To: Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>
Cc: Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>; GENDISPATCH List <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification - draft-eggert-bcp45bis-04.txt

Hi Lars,
Since 2026 doesn't mention conflict of interest, that's probably the procedure. Not entirely satisfactory, but we could live with it.
Regards,
    Brian Carpenter
    (via tiny screen & keyboard)

On Sat, 11 Sep 2021, 17:37 Lars Eggert, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Brian,

Is that an option in your reading of 2026? They way I understand it is that if the AD is conflicted, the entire IESG is the next step?

Thanks,
Lars

--
Sent from a mobile device; please excuse typos.

> On Sep 10, 2021, at 23:20, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> On 10-Sep-21 23:01, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> That works for me, Lars, and thanks.
>>
>> I see Brian's point about Gen AD instead of IETF Chair, but I don't
>> agree with it here, because the SAAs are explicitly appointed by the
>> IETF Chair, not related to the Gen Area.
>
> You're correct. There's still the corner case where the IETF Chair is
> conflicted - for example, if the message(s) objected to by the SAAs
> made allegations about the IETF Chair themself. Probably another AD
> should be the first recourse in that case.
>
>   Brian
>
>>
>> Barry
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 3:11 AM Lars Eggert <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have a proposed change to use the normal RFC2026 appeals process in https://github.com/larseggert/bcp45bis/pull/7/files. This is the current change:
>>>
>>> --- a/draft-eggert-bcp45bis.md
>>> +++ b/draft-eggert-bcp45bis.md
>>> @@ -192,8 +192,8 @@ manner.
>>>
>>> Because an SAA serves at the discretion of the IETF Chair - even if the IETF
>>> Chair is not otherwise involved in the operation of the SAA team - any SAA
>>> -decision could be appealed to the IAB. The IAB shall then review the situation
>>> -and attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own choosing.
>>> +decision can be appealed to the IETF Chair, per {{!RFC2026}}. Decisions by the
>>> +IETF Chair can be appealed to the IESG as whole, again per {{!RFC2026}}.
>>>
>>> # Security Considerations
>>>
>>> Please let me know if this expresses what is desired?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Lars
>>>
>
> --
> Gendispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch